Comparison Of Compolab Tm And Hemocue Hb301 For Haemoglobin Estimation Of Whole Blood Donors
Loading...
Date
2016
Authors
Wong, Yi Shen
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Abstract
Background. For every blood collection from any potential blood donor, pre-transfusion haemoglobin screening is required. It is important to screen potential donors so that the blood products are safe for recipient and at the same time safe for the blood donor. Haemoglobin screening is performed so that blood donors with abnormal levels of haemoglobin are not allowed to donate. This is to protect the donor from possible deterioration of health and also to protect the quality of the collected blood component. The aim of this study was to evaluate a newer haemoglobinometer for haemoglobin screening among blood donors in National Blood Centre, Malaysia.
Methods. 130 eligible blood donors in National Blood Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia participated in this study from 1st March 2015 to 30th September. Each blood donors’ Hb was determined by Compolab TM and HemoCue HB301 through finger-prick capillary blood test and subsequently laboratory venous blood test using Sysmex XN-1000 as the reference method. Compolab TM and HemoCue HB301 was also compared for haemoglobin measuring speed and stability of opened cuvettes at 4th and 7th months .
Results. The Hb results were taken from 130 eligible blood donors. The mean Hb was 14.8, 14.70, 15.1 g/dL for Compolab TM, HemoCue HB301 and Sysmex XN-1000, respectively. Bland Altman plot analysis showed Compolab TM had lower bias (-0.37 g/dL) as compared to HemoCue (-0.44 g/dL) and narrower 95% limits of agreement. Both methods for Compolab TM had high sensitivity at 96%and HemoCue HB301 at 100%. Reliability with Intraclass correlation against Sysmex
XN-1000 was 0.993 for Compolab TM and 0.996 for HemoCue, therefore, both are considered safe to be use as screening tool. Specificity for Compolab TM was high but HemoCue HB301 was not calculable. Compolab TM had five subjects which were falsely ineligible and one subject to be falsely eligible for blood donation. HemoCue HB301 had five subjects who were falsely eligible for blood donation. There were no significant differences in Hb results when comparing cuvettes that were opened for 4 months and 7 months with new cuvettes for Compolab TM and HemoCue HB301. Compolab TM was faster than HemoCue HB301 in detecting Hb reading at mean of 9.67 seconds (P<0.001).
Conclusion. Both Compolab TM and HemoCue HB301 were reliable in measuring Hb level among blood donors. Performance of Compolab TM was comparable to current standard practice, which using HemoCue HB301.
Description
Keywords
Evaluate a newer haemoglobinometer for , haemoglobin screening among blood donors